Stokes v. Association of Independent Taxi Operators, Inc.

Per Curiam. The question presented by this appeal is whether a wife, a paying passenger in a taxicab operated by her husband, may re ⁶⁹¹ cover from his employer for the injuries she sustained as the result of the negligent operation of the cab. The Baltimore City Court (Jones, J.) entered a summary judgment for costs in favor of the defendant (Association of Independent Taxi Operators) against the plaintiff (Dorothy Stokes) and this appeal was taken. The judgment will be affirmed.

On the day of the accident, the husband was driving his wife to work in the cab he was operating pursuant to his working arrangements with the taxi association. As he normally did when transporting his wife to her jobsite, he put the meter flag down and she was a paying passenger. During the course of the trip the taxicab collided with another vehicle. It is conceded that the taxi driver was acting within the scope of his employment and that he had negligently caused the accident.

Under the facts of this case, we think, as did the judge below, that Riegger v. Bruton Brewing Co., 178 Md. 518 , 16 A. 2d 99 (1940), is controlling. There is a split of authority on the question presented. Those jurisdictions allowing recovery in situations such as this are exemplified by Schubert v. August Schubert Wagon Co., 164 N. E. 42 (N. Y. 1928) and Fields v. Synthetic Ropes, Inc., 215 A. 2d 427 (Del. 1965). In those jurisdictions which deny recovery, Riegger is one of the leading cases.

In Riegger , our predecessors based their decision on three lines of cases: those holding that a spouse cannot maintain an action for tortious injury against the other spouse; 1 those holding that a spouse cannot maintain an action against a partnership in which the other spouse is a member; 2 and those holding that a parent cannot maintain an action against his or her child. 3 In Riegger (at p.